A commentary on the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted of the murder of 270 people in the Pan Am 103 disaster.

Saturday, 2 June 2012

Lockerbie revelations prompt calls for inquiry

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald outlining reactions to yesterday's revelations in the newspaper. It reads as follows:]

Revelations in The Herald the UK Government tried to suppress have fuelled calls for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.

Yesterday, we revealed a document the UK Government has blocked for more than 20 years, which has never been aired in public or shared with the courts, originally came from Jordan and indicates a Palestinian terrorist group was involved in the bombing that killed 270 people – which the UK Government has vehemently denied.

The UK Government went to considerable lengths to prevent details of the document – which casts further doubt on the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi – being published by The Herald.Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the atrocity, said: "No-one has been braver than The Herald in searching for the truth about Lockerbie. For this news to break now goes to the core of features of this case which have worried me for a long time. One is the professed ignorance of the UK Prime Minister and Scottish First Minister when they say they uphold the verdict of the trial and [will] not hold an inquiry. "During the second appeal in Edinburgh, when the Advocate General spoke he said a Public Interest Immunity [PII] certificate had been granted by the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband. I knew then the establishment of the countries in which I live were opposing my right to know who really murdered my daughter and all those other people, and to know why their precious lives were not protected." The document incriminates the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) in the bombing. The PFLP-GC were the original suspects in the investigation into the atrocity. However, by 1991 police and prosecutors were entirely focused on Libya.The UK Government arranged for the document to be covered by Public Interest Immunity on national security grounds. Willie Rennie MSP, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, said: "This adds further weight to calls for a Scottish public inquiry into the Lockerbie prosecution. Accusations of suppressing evidence and withholding important documents from those at the heart of the investigation cannot be swept under the carpet. The First Minister should order a Scottish public inquiry to ensure the integrity and fairness of the Scottish justice system is put beyond doubt."It is thought the document could fatally undermine the case against Megrahi, who died of cancer last month. Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, said the fact the Appeal Court, defence team and Megrahi were never allowed access to it is a "tragedy"."The publication of details of the document in yesterday's Herald – previously subject to a PII certificate signed by the Foreign Secretary in the course of the appeal proceedings – was the first inkling I had about the content and source of the document," he said. "What a great pity."John Ashton, the author of Megrahi: You are my Jury, said yesterday: "Mr Megrahi spent 10 years in prison and went to his grave still bearing the weight of his conviction. If this, and all the other important evidence that we now know of, had been disclosed to his lawyers, he should have walked from court a free man and would have spent the last decade with his family. By resisting a public inquiry into the case, the Scottish Government is fuelling the biggest scandal of the country's post-devolution era."Patrick Harvie MSP, Scottish Green Party co-convener, said: "The Herald's latest twist adds to the long-held doubts about Mr Megrahi's conviction. In its apparent attempt to prevent The Herald talking about this document, the Foreign Office refers to the UK's international relations being harmed. Surely the real risk is to our reputation for justice. A public inquiry would help address this sorry saga."A Scottish Government spokesman said: "It is the case that the Crown Office wanted to provide this information to Mr Megrahi's legal team during the second appeal and made this clear to the court, but it could not be done because of the UK Government's Public Interest Immunity certificate."The issues being raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law – Mr Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal, and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined. It remains open for relatives of Mr Megrahi or the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie atrocity to ask the SCCRC (Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) to refer the case to the Appeal Court again on a posthumous basis."

7 comments:

"A Scottish Government spokesman said: "It is the case that the Crown Office wanted to provide this information to Mr Megrahi's legal team during the second appeal and made this clear to the court, but it could not be done because of the UK Government's Public Interest Immunity certificate."

And? They're ok with that are they? They have nothing to say about it when this case involves the biggest loss of life in peace time? "The UK Government said no, so that's it?" Where are Salmond and MacAskill on this issue when, at the time the Supreme Court was "interfering in Scots Law" they had plenty to say about it. Why did they remain silent when a UK Government effectively did the same in this case? No public tantrums against London? Interesting. Speaks volumes and further supports the view that the Scottish Government has worked hand in glove with London to keep the lid on the truth and to deny us all justice.

"The issues being raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law – Mr Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal, and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined. It remains open for relatives of Mr Megrahi or the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie atrocity to ask the SCCRC (Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) to refer the case to the Appeal Court again on a posthumous basis."

The issues being raised were a matter for a Court of law during the second appeal. Why was the Scottish Government not so keen then on that route? Why are they so keen now. Could it be because Mr MacAskill has altered the remit of the SCCRC removing from it the power to refer a case back to the high court and put that decision into the hands of a judge?

Robert, I recall that in the case known as the Ice Cream Wars case the SCCRC threatened to take the Crown Office to Court for withholding evidence from them. Could the SCCRC not have taken that route here too?

I agree with Baz. There's nothing there. I've never seen a front-page "scoop" with less to say for itself. The paper claims that the UK government was threatening legal action to prevent these revelations, and wanted them to sign a gagging order, but I have to ask - what revelations?

Most disturbingly, the paper doesn't actually appear to have seen the damn document! The first article says, "To date, only the Crown, UK Government and SCCRC team know the contents of this closely guarded document."

So we are entitled to ask, if the Herald hasn't seen the document, how do they know what is in it? How can they claim to "reveal the contents" (the first sentence of the first article)? Most intriguingly of all, who told them there is something in it that incriminates the PFLP-GC?

The way the article is written suggests there is a lot more here than we are being told, but is that really the case? Unless we know what the Herald is actually talking about, it's impossible to say. The information that the document originates from Jordan (where Khreesat was and perhaps still is holed up) is new, but any of us could have hazarded a guess that it implicates the PFLP-GC on the information we already had. In fact, this discussion some time ago figured out that the document was likely to refer to the PFLP-GC having possession of one or more MST-13 timers.

The world and his dog already knew the lengths the authorities were prepared to go to to keep the document confidential. The PII certificate, and the whole palaver of the "special advocate" who was to be allowed to see it on Megrahi's behalf, but after than was never again to be allowed to communicate with either Megrahi or his defence team. The Herald doesn't even mention that part, goodness knows why.

So who is this "source" they refer to in the article, and how does he know what's in the document, and is he reliable? In what way exactly does the document incriminate the PFLP-GC beyond what was already in the public domain?

I thought the Herald knew, but was going in for a bit of drip-feeding. After this morning's article, I'm beginning to suspect it's one huge great bluff.

"The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) team that investigated Megrahi's conviction discovered the existence of the document during their four-year investigation which concluded in 2007. Their 800-page report explains that their investigative team were allowed to access the document in Dumfries police station but they were prohibited from removing the notes they made on it and the document itself.

The commission was only able to access the document after signing up to a special agreement not to divulge the contents and was told by the Crown that "a conclusion was reached that the documents did not require to be disclosed in terms of the Crown's obligations".

The SCCRC then ruled that the contents were sufficiently disturbing for a court to have believed the conviction could have been a miscarriage of justice. The failure to disclose the document was one of the six grounds on which the case was referred back for a fresh appeal in 2007."

I wouldn't call this a non-story. I for one feel very glad the Herald continues to challenge on this case. It is more than most newspapers in Scotland are doing.

It does no harm at all to keep stressing that all political Parties who have presided over this case have conspired to pervert the course of justice and continue to do so right before our eyes.

I might also point out that up until 1986 the Abu Nidal group was based in Syria from where it was used by the Syrians in a terrorist war against Jordan. (See chapter 6 of Ronald Searle's superb Abu Nidal A Gun For Hire.) Jordan had a motive to blame Syria.

From the beginning there have been many claims that the PFLP-GC were responsible for Lockerbie. For example my friend David Wolchover blames "the extremists of Palestine". Yet he also claims that within hours of the bombing there were many, many Americans at Tundergarth. But what conclusion does he draw that the Americans knew in advance that PA103 was targetted for destruction and indeed had a fair idea where it would crash?

Well, the bit that you quote is a non-story in the sense of being a non-scoop. It was all widely known years ago. Plus the bit about the "special advocate" who was going to be allowed to see the document on Megrahi's behalf, but was then to be forbidden from communicating with either Megrahi or his defence team. I don't know why the Herald missed that part out.

Whatever. It is already established that the conviction is unsafe. How sad then is it to see so many still rushing to insist there is not enough proof yet. And we don't need the Herald to prove the case!

Translate

Blog Archive

Contributors

VISITS

The hit counter that I have been using has given up the ghost. From now on, I shall periodically disclose here the total number of pageviews from July 2010, as provided by blogspot/blogger. As at 16.00 GMT on 16 January 2019, the pageviews numbered 1,867,567.

unique visitors since 2200 on 13 Nov 09

Comments

Readers are invited to comment on blog posts. All comments require to be pre-moderated by me, and I shall reject all (a) that are not related to the Lockerbie disaster or (b) that fail to meet my -- perhaps idiosyncratic -- standards of courtesy towards other contributors. Comments will not be rejected simply because I disagree with them or because I, or other contributors, find them irritating. But comments will be rejected if they distort or misrepresent the evidence; are defamatory; or if they risk embroiling me, as publisher, in defamation proceedings. I am perfectly relaxed about being sued in respect of material which I personally have posted -- but not in respect of material that others wish to post as comments and which, in any case, I often strongly disagree with.

Particularly during my sojourns in South Africa, it may not be possible for me to perform the moderation function speedily. I regret the necessity of moderation but it has been rendered inevitable by the behaviour of a particular commentator whose contributions will always and without exception be rejected.

No correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions.

Contact me

If you have news or views about the Lockerbie case, you can contact me at rblackqc@outlook.com